# B) Magnetism and heat (Second part).

## B) Magnetism and heat (Second Part).

We premise a brief junction with the first part. In the preceding part we discussed, among the other things, of the contraction or expansion of a gravitational system because of some extraordinary interaction. The orbiting elements will meet regions with higher Vo , if they get closer to the nucleus of the system, and at lower Vo , if they go farther. This results clear if the orbital speeds of the planets in relation to the width of their orbit is considered.

If a system is composed by multiple minor systems, less gravitationally intense, these will singularly have some less high Vo respect to the original system. For example, the Earth has, inside the Sun-Earth system, an orbiting speed of approximately of 30 km/s, while the Moon, in the Earth- Moon system, has a speed of approximately 1 km/s. The same applies between major and minor magnetic domain.

## By Renato Palmieri

The temperature scales. State changes. Magnetic field and internal heat

Let’s return to the problem of the contraction of a gravitational system caused by the prevailing of the internal attraction over the external one. The progressive miniaturization of the magnetic domains involves the continuous decreasing of the related orbital speeds  Vo . There are two main resulting consequences, which we are now going to examine: one consists in the increasing of the electric conductivity”; the other in the diminishing of the absolute temperature”, in the meaning that we are going to define and not in the one of the useless Kelvin scale.

#### When the magnetic domains of a substance are very small, the particles, in translation motion, through them has scarce chances of being captured. We have seen already in the preceding chapter that the translation speeds are more elevate than the orbiting ones. In fact the translation is a gravitational motion influenced by wider external domains, more complex and intense than those through which translation is accomplished. Therefore, the small domains, with the low orbital speeds relative to them, are not able to hold if not a minimum part of the flux of external particles, that is those few which, decelerated by conflicting gravitational interactions, assume a speed pair or inferior to the  Vo of the single domains, entering either in orbiting or collision motion respect to the material corpuscles.

We define “resistance of the substance to  a flux of corpuscles, in translation through the substance, as the capacity to hold a higher o lower number of particle in transit. It is immediately evident that the resistance is minor (and inversely, “conductivity is higher) as much as miniaturization of magnetic domains is high, because Vo are lower and more regular is their structure and organization, because less frequent are the internal dispersions and less sensible the decelerating effects.

So, apart from the study here of the intimate constitution of the atom, we have been able to establish the gravitational reasons of the “electricity”. The corpuscles we are speaking about are mainly the electrons, particles which, by reaching in their orbital motions the atomic periphery, are more likely subject to phenomena of mass transmigration. We have already dealt the gravitational meaning of the “attractiveness” and of the “repulsiveness” in the electric phenomena and of the proton-electron relation. We add here that the “electricity” is not to be imagined under the schematic representation of an approximately linear flow of electrons, but as the translation of countless successive cyclonic “eyes” along the conductor, with vortex of electrons similar to those of the atmospheric masses. The linear displacement of the electrons is therefore limited respect to the total mass of the involved electrons, essentially occurring the chain drive of successive electronic perturbations under form of vortexes from one side to the other of the conductor.

The second consequence of the miniaturization of the magnetic domains is the diminishing of the “absolute temperature”, which, we repeat, does not have any reference with the current definition of it.

In this regard, is to notice the rudimentary character of the common physical concepts of the thermodynamic. Let’s for example consider two items, identical for shape and volume, one made of iron and one made of gold, having an incorporated thermometer. Let’s now carry the objects to the same temperature (supposing it within the limits of the solid status): the one of the thermometer signs – whatever the scale and the “zero” of reference – and that our sense of touch feels, is the “improper or instrumental temperature” and it has a composite value, physically ambiguous. It is in fact easy to observe that the identical effect produced in the thermometer (equal expansion and rise of the mercury) has been provoked in very different conditions by the constituting matter of the two items. Such diversity can be reduced to two main factors, both of them well evident: density, higher in gold rather than in iron, and the magnetic grade, being gold a diamagnetic substance (that is with smaller dominions) and iron a paramagnetic substance (with wider domains).

We have first of all said that the minor dominions involve minor orbital speeds Vo and therefore minor orbiting effective speeds  Vor in the corpuscular structures: this element, if not compensated by other conditions, should produce a minor expansion for gold and iron in the thermometer, as an effect of the simple difference of atomic structure between the two metals. Being in fact, each of the corresponding corpuscles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.), animated into gold by orbiting speed comparatively inferior respect to iron, we must notice – in conventional terms – a less elevated  “kinetic energy”. But in the indication of the thermometer this will evidently be compensated by the other different condition, which is density, higher in gold than in iron. And in fact each unit of volume of the thermometric bulb is affected in gold by a higher number of particles than in iron: the “kinetic energy” (Ec= m v2/2) absorbed by mercury is equal in the two cases, right because an equilibrium between two different factors is established, that is into gold at a higher volumetric mass (or density) corresponds a minor corpuscular speed, in iron a minor density a higher speed of particles. Ultimately, an equal “instrumental temperature”, being well noted the different density of iron and gold, is the certain proof – basing right on the basis of the formula of the “kinetic energy” – that the corpuscular speed are less elevated in gold than in iron. Standing then the different magnetic nature of the two substances, remains confirmed what has been said previously, that the diamagnetism (gold) is characterized by inferior orbital speeds – for the single domains – to those of the paramagnetism (iron).

Once established the mixed character of the “improper, or instrumental temperature”, we can now define the sense of the “absolute temperature”, whose importance we will shortly see: this must refer at a scale that keeps count exclusively of one of the two factors of the improper temperature, that is of the corpuscular speeds. In other words for an equal instrumental temperature of gold and iron, the first is instead – regarding the absolute temperature – “colder” than the second.

To make us well aware of the different way of variating of the two temperatures, we will now build some exemplifying scales. Let’s suppose to compress a gas, in a way that its volumetric mass (or density d), that is the total mass of its particles in the unit of volume, are doubled successively according to the conventional values 2 (starting), 4, 8, … Let’s also suppose to be able of measuring the medium speed of the gas particles, indicating with the conventional value of 1 the medium initial speed and with it the relative “absolute temperature” of the gas before the compression. The simple contraction of the gas, with the increasing of the density and the shrinking of the magnetic domains, will induce in the corpuscular motions a reduction of the medium speed.

Let’s now see how the improper temperature TS , to which we assign the value of the “kinetic energy” of the volumetric unit of the gas, and the absolute one TA variate for the different reductions of the medium initial speed: the instrumental starting temperature (T’S) will be

T’S = 2 * 12 / 2= 1

and the absolute temperature

T’A = 1

A) In the hypothesis that the reduction of speed of the particles is of the 25% for each      doubling of density, we will have:

 d’ = 2 d” = 4 d”’ = 8 v’ = 1 v” = 0,75 v”’ = 0,5625 T’A  = 1 T”A = 0,75 T”’A = 0,5625 T’S = 1 T”S = 1,125 T”’S = 1,2656 (that is: 2 * 12 / 2 4 * 0,75 2 / 2 8 * 0,56252 / 2)

It then results that, for a reduction of the 25% in the medium speed of the particles at each doubling of density, the gas becomes instrumentally more “hot”, but, in a absolute sense, increasingly more “cold”.

B) Supposing instead that the reduction of medium speed is of the 33,(3)% for each doubling of density, the scale will be the following:

 d’ = 2 d” = 4 d”’ = 8 v’ = 1 v” = 0,(6) v”’ = 0,(4) T’A = 1 T”A   = 0,(6) T”’A = 0,(4) T’S = 1 T”S = 0,(8) T”’S= 0,79 (that is: 2 * 12 / 2 4 * 0,(6) 2 / 2 8 * 0,(4)2 / 2)

In such a case, then, the gas becomes increasingly “colder” both for our thermometer and in absolute.

C) To let the instrumental temperature remain stationary, the reduction of the speed of particles will have to be a little less than 30%, exactly as follows:

 d’ = 2 d” = 4 d”’ = 8 v’ = 1 V” = 1/Ö 2 = 0,707 v”’ = 0,5 T’A = 1 T”A  = 0,707 T”’A= 0,5 T’S = 1 T”S = 1 T”’S = 1 (that is: 2 * 12 / 2 4 * (1/Ö 2) 2 / 2 8 * 0,52 / 2)

The gas, increasingly compressed and “colder” referring to the absolute temperature, will now keep the instrumental temperature without variations.

It is therefore easy to understand that the instrumental temperature alone, with its composite character due to the competition of density and corpuscular speeds, measures the caloric phenomena in a unbalanced and contradictory way, marking with alternated results (increasing, diminishing or stability) processes that in absolute are unidirectional. The undifferentiated usage of the improper temperature in the modern thermodynamic therefore prevents an exact theoretic-practical evaluation of the phenomena themselves,  especially referring to the problems of the changes in state.

What we said regarding the contraction of a gravitational system applies, with inverse reasoning, for the expansion of the system in case of prevailing external attraction (the first of the two cases we have considered as alternating the status of orbital equilibrium). We must therefore observe that, while the medium corpuscular speed (and therefore the absolute temperature) tends to increase with the expansion, the instrumental temperature diminishes, remains unvaried or increases basing on the minor or major percentage of the increase in speed, in relation to the decreasing of density.

Regarding this, it is possible to read incredible absurdity in the texts of physics, as the following explanation of the cooling of a “real gas” that expands adiabatically (that is without exchanges of heat with the outside):

“Such a cooling is explainable if we think that the constituting molecules of a real gas, in the          moving away from each other, undergo a slowdown (and therefore a diminishing of the        kinetic energy) due to the action of the cohesion forces that, although weakly, tend to keep         them united” (Physic by Caianiello, De Luca and Ricciardi, 2° vol., pag. 134-135).

Indeed it’s evident that the expansion of the gas could happen only for an exactly opposite phenomenon than the one here hypothesized and that is for an acquiring of speed, that provokes in the molecules a behavior of reciprocal escape instead of cohesive attraction: if the system nevertheless cools down instrumentally for the “diminish in the kinetic energy”, this diminishing is caused by the strong increase of density, that comes to be more influent than the increase in speed of the single molecules in the formula of the kinetic energy.

To get convinced, is appropriate to examine concretely the process in the “Linde machine”. Taken a certain amount of air in the atmosphere, we compress it up to a pressure of approximately 200 atm (phase I), sending then to a refrigerant, that brings it back to a room temperature (phase II). Opened a valve, the pressure decreases from 200 to 20 atm (phase III): in the gas that so expands is found a cooling of approximately 50°C. Well, the current interpretation attributes such a cooling to the simple expansion of the gas that occurs in phase III, taking as an erroneous reference point the “room temperature” regained in phase II. It is true instead that the absolute cooling (not the improper, or instrumental) has been provoked already in phase I, of compression, that has forced the particles of air to reduce progressively their corpuscular speeds. The initial instrumental heating is explainable with the increasing in the volumetric mass, not yet compensated by the gradual diminishing of the atomic speeds. The cooling of phase II, restoring the room temperature despite the strong increase of density, that is of the mass for the units of volume, tells us, with the formula  Ec= m v2/2, that the corpuscular speeds are already much diminished in the air we compressed: when this is freed through the valve, its orbital atomic motions, despite recording accelerations in the decompression phase, result far less fast respect than the normal atmospheric conditions. Hence the 50°C  instrumental cooling, that has its obvious origin much more upstream of the phase of expansion of the gas and that demonstrates, one among a thousand possible examples, the conceptual childishness of the modern theoretical physics.

After all, if the “real gas” frolic in this way in the books of physics, figure those “ideals or perfect !  To tell that they have the magic wand, is little:

“By the relations just now written is possible to deduce that at the diminishing of the       temperature volume and pressure of the perfect gas reduce, until, at the temperature of  -273,15°, both become null” (quoted text, pag. 90)!

And we finally come to the determining reason of this work: the true relation between magnetism and heat. This fundamental relation remains incomprehensible in its essence, until trying to establish it on the basis of the “instrumental temperature”, that introduce – as it has been seen – contradictory and paradoxical aspects in the results. It becomes instead very clear in the light of our concept of “absolute temperature”. In fact the progress of the magnetic organization of matter, from dismagnetism to paramagnetism and to diamagnetism, coincides with a continuous diminishing of the absolute temperature, that is of the corpuscular speeds, unique consequence of the gravitational thickening process. Instead, it is not directly bound to the variations of the improper temperature, that for the reasons explained above manifests reverse directions respect to the absolute temperature.

Let’s use, for an example, our theoretical scales. In a gas with characteristics analogue to the one of scale A (as carbon dioxide), we will notice, by compressing it, this result: despite a progressive increase of the instrumental temperature TS , the gas, at a certain point, comes to liquefy, because of the increasingly higher miniaturization of the magnetic domains and of the continuous diminishing of the corpuscular speeds.

However, it occurs that, in relation to the atomic structure of each gas, the reduction of the corpuscular speeds referred to table A is normally sufficient to produce the liquefying cohesion only up to a certain  TS , called “critical temperature” (in the carbon dioxide: 31°C, “critical pressure” 73 atm).  This because the geometrical reduction of the domains, corresponding to the successive doublings of density, requires a percentual reduction of the progressively higher atomic speeds (passing by from table A to C and then to B). the critical temperature is found at the limit between table A and C; by that point the reduced speeds with the A scale results still too high respect to the smallness of the domains of the relative orbital speeds and therefore provokes, between the particles, prevailing gravitational escape effects, that prevents the liquefaction.

The “changes in state” are therefore phenomena of magnetic nature, that is of “orientation” connected to the gravitational thickening and consequent cohesive conditions. The aggregating of particles progressively reduces the intervals and the atomic-molecular orbital speeds, forcing them to magnetically orienting in increasingly smaller and ordered domains and increasing therefore the interactivity and the gravitational cohesion. Therefore grows the reciprocal stability of the parts of the system, that passes from the plasma and gaseous state to the liquid and then to solid.

It is now evident that the magnetic orientation process is correlated uniquely to the reduction of the atomic speeds (“absolute temperature”), and not to the “instrumental temperature”, which, manifesting in the form of “kinetic energy”, comprehends two non-unique factors in the determination of the magnetic phenomenon: the volumetric mass (density) and the atomic speeds. In fact the magnetic orientation, while is disadvantaged by an increase in the corpuscular speeds, improves instead, normally, with the increasing of density: it is just that two-way that, not understood, has made so far impossible a proper analysis of the magnetic thermodynamic phenomena.

Erroneously referring to the magnetism to the improper temperature, is not possible, for example, to figure out anything of the magnetic field of the celestial bodies:

“Although different hypothesis have been made on the origin of the terrestrial magnetic    field, none of them nowadays seems to be enough satisfying. On the other hand with some          confidence (sic) it is possible to discard to hypothesis that attributes the terrestrial magnetic      field to the existence of permanently magnetized materials in proximity of the magnetic          poles, as, at the temperatures that are supposed to be reached in the inside of the Earth, the substances as nickel, cobalt and iron loose their peculiar magnetic characteristics” (quoted         text, 3° vol., pag. 82).

### But at this point the solution of the snag is known to us:: although the instrumental temperature tends to increase in the periphery towards the inside of the celestial body, this is for most caused by the increasing of the medium density of matter, while, because of the increase in density itself, the atomic-molecular speeds go decreasing (always on average), that is the “absolute temperature” of the system: both these factors favors the magnetic orientation, that therefore becomes increasingly higher, proceeding towards the nucleus, in spite of resulting to exceed of many lengths the famous as much as insignificant “Curie point”. Marveling of the magnetic properties of the “hot” terrestrial nucleus is identical to not understanding how can dry ice exist at the temperature of + 55,2°C: naturally at a very high pressure, of 8000 kgp/cm2.

The gravitational analysis of the magnetism has completed also the demolition of the old formula from Newton, clearing another of the factors that are missing to it and that therefore invalidate it in the measure of the microcosmic interactions (from which the misunderstanding of “forces” different from gravitation that would be operating in the atomic-nuclear scope). The first, as we know, is represented by density. This, however, is clumsily hidden in the so called “universal gravitational constant”, which expresses the medium density of the rarefied macro cosmic matter (*) and therefore, well far from being a “universal constant”, it is in reality a variable! Which is, among the other things, demonstrated by the fact that, despite the great precision of the modern instrument of measure, it was not possible, in calculating it, to go over the petty approximation of 1 over 500!

Other necessary missing factor is precisely the measure of the magnetic field. The prejudice that the magnetic facts are a different thing from the gravitational phenomena has brought to not seeing that, if two masses of magnetized iron (deuteroparamagnetic) attract each other much more than two equal masses of protoparamegnetic iron, this is case of the perfect coordination of the gravitational lines in the first case.

These elements (density and magnetic field, beside mass) and still others, that we cannot discuss now, will have to converge in a new formula that wants to give an account unitarily  and with mathematic precision of all the gravitational macro- and microcosmic interactions. Here is only possible to mention that in the intimate magnetic grade of the corpuscular structure resides one of the fundamental reasons of the different interactivity of the particles like protons and neutrons or like photons and neutrinos.

The renovation of the thermodynamic on the unigravitational basis gave us the instruments for a scientific knowledge of the conditions existing in the nuclei of the gravitational systems, are these celestial bodies, that is cells, atoms or other material aggregates. The spatial and temporal gravitational thickening process determines, as it has been seen during the present work, the parallel increase – by the periphery towards the inside – of the magnetic orientation of matter and of the electric conductivity. And from here it is necessary to start for a successive deepening of the biological thermodynamic, with a study of the phenomena of growth, of senescence and of matter in general in the living organisms. The gravitational analysis of the biological events is in fact decisive not only for the purposes of a correct interpretation of the events, but also of the better mastery of them in the interest of man.

We should also ascertain why the universe and life had decided to exist despite of the “second principle of thermodynamic” and of the somersaults that Monod has to do to reconcile with them (**). The “second principle of the thermodynamic” and the “principle of indetermination” are valid in nature only in relation to the “grade of entropy” (for the profanes: confusion) that reigns in the ideas of the modern physics.

_______________________________________________

(*) It was suspected also by Dennis Sciama: “But if our theory is valid, we can see that in this constant lies, disguised, the medium density of matter in the universe!” (“The inertia”, in Physics and cosmos, Zanichelli, pag. 60).

(**) J. Monod, the case and the necessity, Mondadori, pag. 27-29, 102-103, 159-160. The doubt is terrible: in the biosphere “the maintaining, the reproduction and the multiplication of structures with an elevate order seems incompatible with the second principle of thermodynamic. Such process establishes, in fact, that every macroscopic system evolves only in a sense, in the one of the degrading of the order that characterize it” (pag. 27). Follows an acrobatic series of somersaults.